Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

I am sorry but I cannot comment on your arguments below.  Our views 
regarding linguistics and classical Hebrew are so different that I see 
no purpose in any discussion.

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 25/07/2005 09:36, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
> > RE: [b-hebrew] masorete pointing v's LLX transliterationsDear James,
> >
> > In the archives you will find hundreds of posts discussing the verbal 
> > system of classical Hebrew.  So I will just give a few comments below.
> >
> > There are three basic problems in published studies of the the Hebrew 
> > verbal system:
> >
> > 1) It is *assumed* that Hebrew has four different conjugations 
> > (YIQTOL/WEYIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL). This assumption 
> > prevents any real test of the number of conjugations of the verbal 
> > system, because if you start with four you end up with four.
> >  
>
> Rolf, this is unfair. It is undeniable that in the pointed Masoretic 
> text there are five (not counting imperative, infinitives, participles 
> etc) verb paradigms which are distinct in FORM (I here count WEYIQTOL 
> as a different form from YIQTOL) - a number reduced by two if initial 
> vav pointed with sheva is *assumed* to be nothing more than a prefixed 
> conjunction, but that still leaves three distinct FORMS. The issue is 
> whether these various forms are distinct in MEANING. But your method, 
> at least in its original form, was apparently to *assume* that 
> underlying the various FORMS there are only two distinct MEANINGS - 
> and that the formal distinctions were arbitrary inventions of the 
> Masoretes, a suggestion which was rightly questioned by your external 
> examiner. Of course if you start with two you end up with two, just as 
> with four - or else you end up with an absurdity which demonstrates 
> that your initial assumptions were incorrect. Well, the initial 
> results of your investigation seemed to me to lead to such an 
> absurdity. I hope that you have been able to modify your presentation 
> either to give a coherent explanation of why your results are not an 
> absurdity, or else to present your results as proving the invalidity 
> of your original assumptions and so that there are at least three 
> semantically distinct verb paradigms.
>
> > 2) The basic distinction between semantic meaning (intrinsic or 
> > uncancelable meaning) and conversational pragmatic implicature 
> > (meaning dependent on the context) is ignored. ...
>
> This distinction is part of just one recent and controversial approach 
> to semantics. You really should accept that other scholars have the 
> right to use their own models of semantics without complaining about 
> it - especially when most of them were writing before your own model 
> was even though of.
>
> > 3) When aspect is applied to Hebrew verbs, it is assumed that Hebrew 
> > aspects have the same nature as the aspects in other aspectual 
> > languages.  I am not aware of a single study where the nature of 
> > Hebrew aspect has been studied in its own right, from the viewpoint 
> > that aspect can be language specific.
> >  
>
> Well, the whole point of the linguistic concept of aspect is that it 
> is intended to be a cross-linguistic category applicable to many 
> languages. You can argue if you want that Hebrew does not have aspect 
> as applied to other languages, but in that case it would be safer to 
> avoid confusion by using a different word which will not confuse 
> linguists.
>
> > I have studied the functions of the verbs, but my goal has been to 
> > find the *meaning* of each verb form, i.e. to find the parts of the 
> > verbal system that always will have the same meaning.  Because any 
> > verb form can have past, present, and future meaning, can express 
> > completed and uncompleted events (or bounded and unbounded events), ...
>
> I note that this is probably only true on your two form assumption, 
> i.e. if you assume for example that WAYYIQTOL (most commonly past and 
> completed) is the same verb form as YIQTOL (most commonly non-past and 
> uncompleted). This is a bit like saying that if you presuppose that 
> the words "chalk" and "cheese" have the same meaning there is no 
> English word which distinguishes chalk and cheese.
>
> > ... my conclusion is that neither tense (=grammaticalized location in 
> > time) nor aspect as it is found in English are grammaticalized in 
> > classical Hebrew.  However, the Hebrew conjugations do express 
> > aspect, but with a nature very different from the English aspects.  
> > This means that YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and WAYYIQTOL  represent the 
> > imperfective aspect and QATAL and WEQATAL represent the perfective 
> > aspect.
> >  
>
> Rolf, I have never understood your attempts to define "the 
> imperfective aspect" and "the perfective aspect" as applied to Hebrew. 
> But one thing is clear: your definitions of these aspects as applied 
> to Hebrew are so totally different from the cross-linguistic 
> definitions found in standard linguistics books that your use of the 
> same terminology serves only to spread total confusion.
>
> > ... My conclusions are radical indeed, because they in a way turn  of 
> > Hebrew verb grammar upside down. An acceptance of the conclusions 
> > would have a great impact on  Bible t
> > ranslation, because thousands of verbs in modern Bible translations 
> > are in need of re-translation.  This relates particularly to the 
> > temporal references of verbs.
> >
> >  
> Rolf, what turns Hebrew grammar upside down is not your conclusions, 
> but your initial *assumption*, that verb forms which are distinct in 
> form and which in traditional grammar have very different meanings are 
> in fact semantically identical. Since you started with this 
> assumption, it is of course part of your conclusion, but it is not a 
> meaningful result because it is clear that if you start with a 
> different assumption you end up with different conclusions - indeed 
> you said so yourself: "if you start with four you end up with four". 
> So, unless you can demonstrate very clearly that your assumption (not 
> your conclusions) must be correct and the alternative assumption must 
> be incorrect, the best you can hope to prove by your method is that 
> there is an alternative consistent interpretation of Hebrew verbs, and 
> that we cannot be sure which of the two interpretations is the correct 
> one. I don't think you have actually demonstrated that your assumption 
> leads to an alternative consistent interpretation (although I haven't 
> seen your final results on this), but that's a separate issue.